Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Hansard source

I want to thank Senator O'Neill for her very considered contribution to this debate. She raised a lot of very sensitive issues that are, certainly, foremost in the minds of many people when they're looking at the bill that is before us, the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. A lot of people are making this bill about voluntary assisted dying, or euthanasia. Certainly, if this bill goes through, it will enable the Northern Territory and the ACT to bring on debate about voluntary assisted dying, and it may result in the passage of laws in those territories. While, yes, voluntary assisted dying might be the outcome of the passage of this bill, what this bill is actually about is what this place started in 1978 with, first, the passage of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. Ten years later, that was followed up by the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act. Then we also had the Norfolk Island Act in 1979.

We in this place, at those times, decided that it was right and fair for the territories to be able to govern themselves. We decided that the territories should have the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of their people. But then, in 1996, when people in this place saw the result of the passage of those bills, when the Northern Territory passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 1995, all of a sudden we decided that, no, the territories can't govern for themselves over everything; they can only govern for themselves on things that we think are appropriate for them to have self-government on. Now, I don't think you can have it both ways. We either support the territories governing and making laws for the peace, order and good government of their people, or we don't. I don't think it is fair that the territories always have it hanging over their heads that, if we don't like their laws, we'll come into this place and work against them.

This bill proposes to remove the restrictions that were put in place in 1996, known as the Andrews bill. I acknowledge that this is a very sensitive issue and a personal issue for many people in this chamber, in the parliament and in the wider community. We know that there have been many attempts to repeal the Andrews bill, and, if this bill is unsuccessful today, I'm sure there will be many attempts in the future. I am not here to debate the merits of euthanasia. I am here to debate the merits of the territory leaders and the elected representatives in the territories taking their positions to their electorates, and for their right to debate in their own assemblies the merits, or otherwise, of their proposed legislation.

I grew up in the ACT. In fact, I was living in the ACT when they had their first self-government elections. I remember the size of the ballot paper. It certainly made the New South Wales Senate ballot paper look quite small at the time. I remember the Party! Party! Party! party running—that was the joy the ACT had when they could finally elect, from their own, people to come together and determine rules and legislation for the peace, order and good government of their own region, of the territory. It was a joyous election, and the ACT has been governed ever since by people that they elect from their own, who come together in the ACT Legislative Assembly to debate the merits of their proposals. Why should anyone from any other jurisdiction determine that the people of the ACT and the people of the Northern Territory and Norfolk Island don't have the right to have their own elected representatives debating the merits of their own laws?

In today's world there is no justifiable reason why the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly or the ACT Legislative Assembly should not have the power to make laws that impact on their own citizens. Territory leaders should be able to take legislative proposals to their electorates. Their elected representatives have the right to, and, indeed must, adjudicate on issues on behalf of their electorates. It is crucially important that these people are able to have those rightful debates in their assemblies.

If this bill is successful today, I implore the leaders of the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory to first take their positions to an election so that their constituents are aware of what the positions being taken forward are. I implore them to give it that time so that the people of their jurisdictions can have the right say, can vote for their elected representative knowing full well what that person's position is. Then they can have the debates in their assemblies to progress or otherwise any legislation that they wish to bring forward. But I think that is a right that the people of the territories should have. They should absolutely be able to vote for representatives based on what their positions are. They should be able to vote knowing that their representatives will then take that position forward into their assemblies and have the debates, like we are having this debate today.

I don't want to dwell on the fact of the voluntary assisted dying part of the bill, because, really, to me, this bill is about the territories' rights, but I will address a couple of issues. I wholeheartedly agree with Senator O'Neill when she raises the importance of palliative care. We must do better in this country to provide palliative care for our elderly and for our terminally ill.

There is a fear that, if we allow voluntary assisted dying, we will have an absolute tsunami of applications. But this is not borne out in Victoria, which was the first state to bring in voluntary assisted dying. Their legislation passed in 2017. Between June 2019, when it came into effect, and June 2021, only 836 assessments had been made. Some might say that shows that it was unnecessary, and I would say no—it shows that there are not going to be a tsunami of applications. People are not going to race forward to try and get early inheritance. People take this very, very seriously. Out of those 836 assessments, 597 permits were granted, but only 331 people actually took the medication. That is less than 40 per cent of all assessments. That goes to show that, even if you are assessed and even if you have got a permit, it doesn't necessarily mean you will follow through. But what it means is that you have the choice. You have the right and you have the option.

I certainly wouldn't want to take advantage of such a law prematurely, ever, but I do think that people deserve the right to choose to live or die in dignity. I still think that the first priority should be palliative care; the first priority should be health, treatment, medication. But I also know that there are times when, for all good intentions, there is no means of prolonging someone's life, and there are certainly diseases and ailments that just cause so much pain and suffering that people want a choice.

I think that the people of the Northern Territory and the ACT should absolutely have the right to debate the merits or otherwise of any proposed legislation brought forward. We have certainly learnt a lot from the different models that are out there, and I am sure that the people of the Northern Territory and the ACT and their leaders, their elected representatives, will take all due consideration. But they should have the right to have the debate for themselves and to then vote on the merits or otherwise of any legislation that is brought before them. I do not think it is the responsibility of us in this place. Most of us don't live in either of the territories. In fact in the Senate there are only four territory senators out of 76 of us, so I don't think the rest, 72 of us, should be telling them what they can and can't do. The territories have their legislative assemblies now. We passed that in 1978 for the Northern Territory and 1988 for the ACT, and we should let them govern. So I will be voting in support of this bill.